BTW I still have some "internals" to work on, for example you don't always get the bomb density you ask for, but for me it is the externals - the look, colours, layout, etc. that aren't good enough. The name could even be better (but should have minesweeper in it, so people know kinda what it is like)

All advice/help appreciated.

But most of all ... enjoy!

"The physicists defer only to mathematicians, and the mathematicians defer only to God ..." - Leon M. Lederman

Re: Minesweeper MathsIsFun Style

Interesting. My first impression was, "What?" Then, "Oh. Cool!" Then, "There's a lot more times that you must just guess." Then, "I wonder if there are some mad techniques for guessing?"

For example, in regular minesweeper, I would take guesses based on a rough estimate of the probability of a mine (or blank) occupying a certain space. I based it on the number of bombs I knew were in a given area, the total number of bombs left, and total number of squares left. It worked quite well.

I haven't found any similar technique here. However, I do feel a lot less like a computer could do a better job at it than I could.

Bugs I've seen so far:I found that I could drag a flag onto an already-flagged square to run down the number of available flags. I didn't test what happens when it hits zero; I'm guessing you get stuck in sweeper limbo.

Also, it's possible to click and explode mines that have been exposed by a shovel.

It also ran very slow, but that could just be because I'm running 2^39062500 in the background.

Mechanical suggestions:Why limit the number of flags at all?A "bombs remaining" counter would be nice.Dragging flags is incredibly tedious. Couldn't you do a platform-neutral modifier-click, like shift, to flag mines?

Visual suggestions:The horizontal lines are easy to follow, but the diagonals got a little hard on the eyes. Once you get a mishmash of flags out there, there's quite a lot of visual ambiguity in the diagonals--what I mean to say is, the eye has a hard time following the line, and you have to check closely and convince yourself that you're still on the same diagonal you started with. Alternating shading would be awesome.

It would be very useful to grey out or otherwise identify lines that have been "satisfied" so you can block them out of visual scans.

Re: Minesweeper MathsIsFun Style

The main difference between this and regular minesweeper is that with this, you get all the information at the start and have to use it to deduce where the mines are. In normal minesweeper, you get nothing at the start except a free go, and you uncover information as you uncover safe ground. In minesweeper, you can almost always complete the board with pure logic, but this one needs quite a bit of guesswork. One thing I'm confused about is the number of spades you're given. I can start two games with exactly the same settings, but in one I get 1 spade and in the other I get 2.

In other news, I once completed beginner minesweeper in 7 seconds.Edit: In other other news, I have just now completed beginner minesweeper in 1 second. Seriously. This deserves a smiley.

Re: Minesweeper MathsIsFun Style

I've found 2 glitches now.

1) If you play on a small board with a high density, it's possible that all the squares have mines on them and so the game would be impossible. Similarly, if you play on a small board with a low density, you sometimes get a mine-free zone.

2) If you complete a game, then quickly start a new one before the 'Well Done' animation finishes, you get shown where all the mines are on the new game board.

Re: Minesweeper MathsIsFun Style

I like that game, it's well designed, and it's addictive when you first get into it. I didn't encounter any bugs when I played it, which I did twice. It hasn't ran slow either. Have you fixed it, or is it my computer just having a good day?

Last edited by Roraborealis (2005-12-04 03:47:24)

School is practice for the future. Practice makes perfect. But - nobody's perfect, so why practice?

Re: Minesweeper MathsIsFun Style

A mathematical paradox.

In an 8x8 game, there are 64 total squares, right? And you start with 99 flags? and 99-64 = 35?

So what's wrong with this picture? (note, I was careful to see that every flag I dropped marked a square--I know that there are a few ways to drop the flag counter without marking more squares, but I avoided them).

Re: Minesweeper MathsIsFun Style

You photoshopped the image just to confuse me, right?

Or it isn't counting them properly.

One or the other.

BTW the thing about flags is ... I don't give a win when you mark flags on all bombs ...

... because you could cheat by placing/unplacing flags until you win (for example: you may have a few squares left and don't want to risk being blown up, so you try flagging/unflagging until you win ... well I won't give a win that way ... you actually have to show the safe squares and risk being blown up.)

Is this right? Discuss ...

"The physicists defer only to mathematicians, and the mathematicians defer only to God ..." - Leon M. Lederman

Re: Minesweeper MathsIsFun Style

The 8x8 grid doesn't have 64 squares. There's a 7x7 grid hidden inside the 8x8 one, so there are actually 113 squares.Just look at the 2x2 grid to see clearly that ryos's reasoning is flawed. There are 5 squares in that one.

Re: Minesweeper MathsIsFun Style

OK, looks like I need to get stuck into revisions ... anyone care to add to the list?

1. Easier way to place flags2. Can win if flags placed correctly (? takes risk out of game ?)3. Bombs remaining (? does that make it too easy ?)4. "Well done" has to finish before new game option5. Density to more closely match what's asked for on small boards6. Infinite Flags option7. Better colours/layout (I don't know what to do here)8. Sound?

"The physicists defer only to mathematicians, and the mathematicians defer only to God ..." - Leon M. Lederman

Re: Minesweeper MathsIsFun Style

2) I say, can win if all clear spaces are correctly marked.3) I don't think it makes it too easy, since that info is readily available to the player that is willing to sum them up. Who wants to do that?4) Or stops when "new game is clicked"; animations get old when we are forced to wait for them.7) I'll draw up a suggestion later tonight.

Re: Minesweeper MathsIsFun Style

This is more about it visually. I don't know if it is just on my computer, but the flags appear very pale and it can be difficult to see them after marking a square. Apart from that, it is a good game and very addictive.:)

Re: Minesweeper MathsIsFun Style

Yes, I get that as well. The flags are visible, but very faint.

The glitches that I mentioned before are still there as well.

Incidentally, I found this on the internet a while ago. It's the same idea as minesweeper, but 3D!Edit: I just realised the instructions on that page are in Japanese. Basically, you click on a side of the shape to label it as either a safe face or a mine and you press spacebar to toggle between labelling safe faces and labelling mines. If you label something incorrectly, you lose.

Re: Minesweeper MathsIsFun Style

mathsyperson wrote:

The glitches that I mentioned before are still there as well.

Bomb choice is random, so strange things can happen, but I did add some code to artificially choose bombs to get the density closer to that requested. It has improved the situation, but not completely.

And I am still looking at stopping the "Success" thingy part way through - I know how do it in theory, but in practice it isn't playing fair!

"The physicists defer only to mathematicians, and the mathematicians defer only to God ..." - Leon M. Lederman